Tennessee Senate Overrides Restaurant Carry Veto

[Guest HvyMtl]

Wish the Governor had just let this go thru, he has wasted a lot of tax dollars forcing a veto override he knew would come...

Not good, considering the Legislature is supposed to be focused on the budget. I think he did this on purpose to limit changes to the budget he proposed, by limiting the time focused on it...

I hope the legislature throws his budget out and writes its own in response...

[Fallguy]

That is the "current" law, but we are discussing SB3012

Amendments 1-3 passed on 4/29/10

They can be seen here...

Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Amendment 3

In those amendments it say 1 or both may be used.

So rework everything after the amendments and the new 39-17-1359 will look like this.

39-17-1359

(a)

(1) An individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, business entity or government entity.

(2) The prohibition in subdivision (1) shall apply to any person who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351.

(

(1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be accomplished by displaying one (1) or both of the notices described in subdivision (3) in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited.

Either form of notice used shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, property, or portion of the building or property, posted.

(2) The notice required by this section shall be in English, but a duplicate notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons, customers or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession is prohibited.

(3)

(A) If a sign is used as the method of posting, it shall contain language substantially similar to the following:

AS AUTHORIZED BY TCA § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

(

As used in this section, “language substantially similar to” means the sign contains language plainly stating that:

(i) The property is posted under authority of Tennessee law;

(ii) Weapons or firearms are prohibited on the property, in the building, or on the portion of the property or building that is posted; and

(iii) Possessing a weapon in an area that has been posted is a criminal offense.

© A building, property or a portion of a building or property, shall be considered properly posted in accordance with this section if one (1) or both of the following is displayed in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited:

(i) The international circle and slash symbolizing the prohibition of the item within the circle; or

(ii) The posting sign described in this subdivision (3).

©

(1) It is an offense to possess a weapon in a building or on property that is properly posted in accordance with this section.

(2) Possession of a weapon on posted property in violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by fine only of five hundred dollars ($500).

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for injuries arising on their property.

(e) The provisions of this section shall not apply to title 70 regarding wildlife laws, rules and regulations.

(f) This section shall not apply to the grounds of any public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a municipality or instrumentality thereof. The carrying of firearms in those areas shall be governed by § 39-17-1311.

So the new 39-17-1351((1) and 39-17-1359((3)© both say that one or both can be used. This has been discussed at length in other threads.

[Guest HexHead]

According to NewsChannel5 tonight, next stop for the restaurant bill if the House overrides the veto will be the State's Supreme Court, which "last year ruled the law unconstitutional".

Dumbasses. Maybe they're not done with us?

[Guest HexHead]

nevermind.

Edited May 28, 2010 by HexHead

[Guest TNReb]

I now have transcribed both Senator Jackson's wonderful speech and the amazingly brilliant and obviously well thought out response by Senator Marrerro (aka crazy hat lady--and I don't mean the hat is crazy. Also now removing tongue from cheek). I would be happy to post them here if anyone wants them.

[Guest TNReb]

According to NewsChannel5 tonight, next stop for the restaurant bill if the House overrides the veto will be the State's Supreme Court, which "last year ruled the law unconstitutional".

Dumbasses. Maybe they're not done with us?

Our wonderful MSM at their best again, eh?

[EMTRN]

Thanks for the clarification Fallguy, I figured that you were right to begin with! I hate that amendment, that is awful.

[Fallguy]

According to NewsChannel5 tonight, next stop for the restaurant bill if the House overrides the veto will be the State's Supreme Court, which "last year ruled the law unconstitutional".

Dumbasses. Maybe they're not done with us?

LOL..."News"Channel 5, huh?

Can't even get last year's bill and this year's straight huh?

[Fallguy]

Thanks for the clarification Fallguy, I figured that you were right to begin with! I hate that amendment, that is awful.

NP...just wish I had better things to do than keep up with all of this sometimes...lol

That is the one slightly bitter pill to swallow in all of this, but overall not a bad bill.

Still like that it repeals 39-17-1305 all together instead of picking and choosing and defining places.

[Slasher]

Senator Tate I believe

Unfortunately so. This explains why he would not return my emails asking him to overturn the veto. This was the first time I got involved in this process and sent a message to my elected officials but will not be the last and you better bet that Tate will be getting an email from me expressing my displeasure with him.

[Guest JC1848]

I now have transcribed both Senator Jackson's wonderful speech and the amazingly brilliant and obviously well thought out response by Senator Marrerro (aka crazy hat lady--and I don't mean the hat is crazy. Also now removing tongue from cheek). I would be happy to post them here if anyone wants them.

the hat is kinda crazy but you are right about everything else

[Guest slothful1]

YEP the sign below

(Please no comment about applies to semis only etc...)

Without any wording or with any wording of any kind, the above will be a legal posting.

If a sign only is posted it must be worded substantially similar to:

Substantially similar being defined as sign that has language plainly stating:

• The property is posted under authority of Tennessee law

  
  

• Weapons or firearms are prohibited on the property, in the building, or on the portion of the property or building that is posted

  
  

• Possessing a weapon in an area that has been posted is a criminal offense

  
  

Which ever is used it still must be posted prominently at all entrances generally used by the public.

Forgive my ignorance, as I have been out of the loop for a while, but does this change affect all posted properties or just the restaurants serving alcohol? It's pretty disappointing that the Ghostbusters sign is going to be legally binding.

[GKar]

Unfortunately so. This explains why he would not return my emails asking him to overturn the veto. This was the first time I got involved in this process and sent a message to my elected officials but will not be the last and you better bet that Tate will be getting an email from me expressing my displeasure with him.

Did anyone else notice that Tate (seated right in front of Jackson during his remarks on the video stream) looked like he'd just eaten a bad Mexican meal the entire time Jackson was speaking? Judas realizing he didn't want those pieces of silver...

[VolunteerGuns]

SB3012 with all 3 senate amendments-

SENATE BILL 3012

By Jackson

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39,

Chapter 17, Part 13; Section 57-3-204 and Section

57-4-203, relative to permitting or prohibiting the

carrying of firearms in certain places.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1305, is amended by

deleting the section in its entirety.

SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1321, is amended by

deleting subsection ( and by substituting instead the following:

( It is an offense for a person to possess a firearm if the person is both:

(1) Within the confines of an establishment open to the public

where liquor, wine or other alcoholic beverages, as defined in § 57-3-

101(a)(1)(A), or beer, as defined in § 57-6-102(1), are served for

consumption on the premises; and

(2) Consuming any alcoholic beverage listed in subdivision (1) of

this subsection (.

©

(1) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(2) In addition to the punishment authorized by subdivision (1), if

the violation is of subsection (a), occurs in an establishment described in

subdivision ((1), and the person has a handgun permit issued pursuant

to § 39-17-1351, such permit shall be suspended in accordance with §

39-17-1352 for a period of three (3) years.

SECTION 3. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1359, is amended by

deleting the section in its entirety and substituting instead the following:

(a)

(1) An individual, corporation, business entity or local, state or

federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the

possession of weapons by any person who is at a meeting conducted by,

or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the

individual, corporation, business entity or government entity.

(2) The prohibition in subdivision (1) shall apply to any person

who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351.

(

(1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be

accomplished by displaying one (1) or both of the notices described in

subdivision (3) in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily

used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property

or building where weapon possession is prohibited.

(2) The notice required by this section shall be in English, but a

duplicate notice may also be posted in any language used by patrons,

customers or persons who frequent the place where weapon possession

is prohibited.

(3)

(A) If a sign is used as the method of posting, it shall contain

language substantially similar to the following:

AS AUTHORIZED BY TCA § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION

OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A

POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A

CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

( As used in this section, “language substantially similar

to” means the sign contains language plainly stating that:

(1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be accomplished

by displaying one (1) or both of the notices described in subdivision (3) in prominent

locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property,

building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited.

Either form of notice used shall be of a size that is plainly visible to the average person

entering the building, property, or portion of the building or property, posted.

(i) The property is posted under authority of Tennessee law;

(ii) Weapons or firearms are prohibited on the property, in the building, or on the portion of the property or

building that is posted; and

(iii) Possessing a weapon in an area that has been posted is a criminal offense.

© A building, property or a portion of a building or

property, shall be considered properly posted in accordance with

this section if one (1) or both of the following is displayed in

prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by

persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property

or building where weapon possession is prohibited:

(i) The international circle and slash symbolizing

the prohibition of the item within the circle; or

(ii) The posting sign described in this subdivision

(3).

©

(1) It is an offense to possess a weapon in a building or on

property that is properly posted in accordance with this section.

(2) Possession of a weapon on posted property in violation of this

section is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by fine only of five hundred

dollars ($500).

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate

any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for

injuries arising on their property.

(e) The provisions of this section shall not apply to title 70 regarding

wildlife laws, rules and regulations.

(f) This section shall not apply to the grounds of any public park, natural

area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other

similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a

municipality or instrumentality thereof. The carrying of firearms in those areas

shall be governed by § 39-17-1311.

SECTION 4. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1351, is amended by

inserting the following between the fourth and fifth sentences of subsection (e):

Beginning September 1, 2010, and thereafter, a component of the

classroom portion of all department approved handgun safety courses shall be

instruction on alcohol and drugs, the effects of those substances on a person's

reflexes, judgment and ability to safely handle a firearm, and the provisions of §

39-17-1321.

SECTION 5. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 57-3-204, is amended by

deleting subsection (e) in its entirety.

SECTION 6. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 57-4-203, is amended by

deleting subsection (k) in its entirety.

SECTION 7. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.

Edited May 28, 2010 by adamween

[VolunteerGuns]

Forgive my ignorance, as I have been out of the loop for a while, but does this change affect all posted properties or just the restaurants serving alcohol? It's pretty disappointing that the Ghostbusters sign is going to be legally binding.

(e) The provisions of this section shall not apply to title 70 regarding

wildlife laws, rules and regulations.

(f) This section shall not apply to the grounds of any public park, natural

area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other

similar public place that is owned or operated by the state, a county, a

municipality or instrumentality thereof. The carrying of firearms in those areas

shall be governed by § 39-17-1311

[Fallguy]

Forgive my ignorance, as I have been out of the loop for a while, but does this change affect all posted properties or just the restaurants serving alcohol? It's pretty disappointing that the Ghostbusters sign is going to be legally binding.

All places that 39-17-1359 applied before.

So other than parks and wildlife areas, yes the "ghostbusters" sign will be a legal posting.

[Guest HexHead]

Maybe NewsChannel5 wasn't so far off after all? From today's Tennessean...

If the House follows suit and overrides the governor's veto next week as expected, a legal challenge soon will follow, the attorney who successfully challenged last year's law said.

Nashville attorney David Randolph Smith said he has heard from servers who work in restaurants that may not post signs prohibiting guns. Smith said those employees intend to file a complaint stating the new law violates state workplace safety regulations.

"If the legislature overrides the veto, then we are preparing to file a complaint that this is a violation under (the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration) guidelines," Smith said.

If this suit gets filed, I'm going to stop tipping in restaurants. I suggest everyone do the same.

The plaintiffs will likely file as John/Jane Doe like last time and since we have no way of knowing if your waiter(ess) is the complainant, punish them all. Make them bring pressure to kill the suit.

Edited May 28, 2010 by HexHead

[Wingshooter]

Maybe NewsChannel5 wasn't so far off after all? From today's Tennessean...

If the House follows suit and overrides the governor's veto next week as expected, a legal challenge soon will follow, the attorney who successfully challenged last year's law said.

Nashville attorney David Randolph Smith said he has heard from servers who work in restaurants that may not post signs prohibiting guns. Smith said those employees intend to file a complaint stating the new law violates state workplace safety regulations.

"If the legislature overrides the veto, then we are preparing to file a complaint that this is a violation under (the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration) guidelines," Smith said.

Wow, this is really getting under the anti's skin! I guess state workplace safety regs only apply to servers??? A successful suit on these grounds could undermine the HCP in public places statewide. I don't think he has a case. If a server doesn't agree with a restaurant's policies, then that person needs to "vote with their feet" and find another job! Can we sue the lawyer for wasting state money on these frivolous law suits?

Edited May 28, 2010 by Batman

[DavidD]

I now have transcribed both Senator Jackson's wonderful speech and the amazingly brilliant and obviously well thought out response by Senator Marrerro (aka crazy hat lady--and I don't mean the hat is crazy. Also now removing tongue from cheek). I would be happy to post them here if anyone wants them.

BY all means, please post.

[Guest HexHead]

Wow, this is really getting under the anti's skin! I guess state workplace safety regs only apply to servers??? A successful suit on these grounds could undermine the HCP in public places statewide. I don't think he has a case. If a server doesn't agree with a restaurant's policies, then that person needs to "vote with their feet" and find another job! Can we sue the lawyer for wasting state money on these frivolous law suits?

Bonneyman didn't think so last year either. They tried to fight the old law using OSHA rules and she threw it out as being without merit.

[Fallguy]

Bonneyman didn't think so last year either. They tried to fight the old law using OSHA rules and she threw it out as being without merit.

Yep....

They can file all the suits they want, but I don't see it going anywhere.

The bill last year was challenged at several angles, one of them being the worker safety as you said. The only thing that moved forward was the void for vagueness. There is nothing vague in this bill.

Wonder who these serevers work for...... I'll give you 3 guesses and 2 don't count. At least that would be my bet. I don't actually know this.

My lord....just how long can someone cry and kick and scream and not just be over something?!

[Guest uofmeet]

Maybe NewsChannel5 wasn't so far off after all? From today's Tennessean...

If this suit gets filed, I'm going to stop tipping in restaurants. I suggest everyone do the same.

The plaintiffs will likely file as John/Jane Doe like last time and since we have no way of knowing if your waiter(ess) is the complainant, punish them all. Make them bring pressure to kill the suit.

Ditto, But are the waiter(ess) actually doing this? or is this some anti doing in on their behalf, meaning none of them really care except the anti's?

And if anything, it would be a safer work place.

It would be like me being a cab driver and filing suit cause i could get in a accident that could injure/kill me in the work place. same thing IMO.

[Guest TnRebel]

Isn't Tn a right to work state ? If so then if you don't like the employers rules then there's the door.

[Fallguy]

Isn't Tn a right to work state ? If so then if you don't like the employers rules then there's the door.

Well technically it's Employee at-will not right to work, but you're right.

If, IF a place couldn't post they might, MIGHT have a slim chance of some kind, but otherwise I don't see how.

As you said, if the place you work doesn't post and you don't like it...move on to the next place that does.

[Guest 10mm4me]

It is no more unsafe than in McDonald's or Wal-Mart. They have absolutely no case here as the have been given a way to opt out (post the property) As TN is a right to work state, if they don't like it, they can get another job. When does this law go into effect?